Supposedly Cousins is going to go to Denver, Minnesota, Jets, or Arizona. It is a QB driven league, so teams are going to overspend to get a QB. It was being reported that a team offered Philly a 2nd round pick for Foles. Cleveland was ready to give up picks for AJ McCarron. McCarron won a grievance and is now a free agent. He is going to be overpaid for his on-field accomplishments, too. Hell, even last year Chicago gave a ton of money to Mike Glennon and already cut him.

Ran wrote:The Browns were busy today. They gave a 3rd round pick to Buffalo for Tyrod Taylor, and gave a couple picks to Miami for Jarvis Landry.

Now it looks like Buffalo is definitely going to draft a QB. I wouldn't be surprised if they sign either McCarran from Cincy or one of the guys from Minnesota.

Oh look, Cleveland did what I said they should do. Sorta. I’m 98% sure they’re still gonna grab Barkley at #1. And then perhaps Baker Mayfield with the fourth pick. But realistically, all those “top” QB prospects, Darnold, Rosen, etc will still be available even if the Giants and Colts both go QB.

And we haven’t even got to Free Agency yet.

One would hope the Bills went for Bradford or Keenum and not Bridgewater.

Today is the first day teams can talk to potential free agents, but can't sign them until the 14th. The Bills apparently have interest in Bradford and Keenum. They just traded a offensive lineman and their #21 overall pick to the Bengals for the #12 overall pick.

That gives Buffalo 6 picks in the top 100. Various NFL reporters think they are setting up to move to the top of the draft to get a QB.

I'm so tired of the draft hype. Glad it is finally happening tomorrow.

Uncle Roger Goodell is probably thrilled that Cleveland kept the 1st pick quiet and that none of the experts could agree on which QB is the best in order to build up suspense. Reality television at its finest.

What I don’t get is, everybody predicting the Giants pick based on Cleveland’s pick. If Cleveland grabs Barkley, then the Giants will take a QB. If Cleveland takes a QB, then the Giants will take Barkley. Do the Giants need a fucking QB or not? The Jets traded up to 3 to definitely take a QB. They wouldn’t trade up and then pick a DB or Running Back that they could’ve had where they were before. Now, I personally think the Giants should take a QB regardless of what Cleveland does. Because when are you gonna have the #2 pick ever again? But if they aren’t in the market for a QB because they’re all in on their elderly Eli Manning, why does everyone think they’re gonna take a QB just because Barkley is off the table if Cleveland takes him? They could go with Chubb or someone else. I just don’t get the bi-polar mock draft predictions going on there.

It is all over-analysis. I look at the mock drafts just to learn the names of the players. There have been some mock drafts where they have QBs going in the first round, but when the actual draft rolls around, those same QBs fall the 4th (Go look at a mock draft from 2013 and see where Barkley, Nassib, and Glennon went.)

Up until a few weeks ago, Darnold was most likely to be the #1 pick. Now they are reporting that the Browns will take Allen or Mayfield.

If the Giants don't trade the #2 pick, they could take Barkley with the hopes that he makes Eli Manning look better. The Giants had no run game last year, and Barkley is supposed to be one of those generational talents. Chubb would make sense, too. So, would a QB, but you saw what happened when they benched Eli last year.

And once again it will be absolutely astonishing to see how close one man can come to beating a team with 5 all stars playing all the time. He is a true beast, probably the greatest all around player of all time.

People either love him or hate him. Personally, I don’t know if I’d give him the GOAT over Jordan, but I recognize that he’s the greatest player of his generation and after he’s done and retired, people will mention Jordan and Lebron in the same sentence whenever the next phenom comes along in twenty years. He’s earned that. I don’t watch that much basketball, but he’s pretty exceptional. I’m a fan.

I was lucky enough to live through the Jordan era & be a fan at the time. I believe Lebron has done more with less. He is bigger, stronger & in my opinion a better passer and defender than MJ ever was, and he has taken teams to the finals numerous times that had absolutely no business getting there. That being said, Jordan simply refused to lose. There has never been an athlete with more determination to win than MJ, as the six championships will attest. It's an impossible argument.

I don't really follow the NBA and I'm indifferent to either player. But, they were comparing Jordan vs. Lebron on the radio today. The counter-arrangement to Jordan winning 6 championships was that he didn't win those other years, or even make the finals. Lebron has now made 8 consecutive finals.

Lebron is also my only random celebrity siting since I've lived in Las Vegas.

They might have meant that Jordan didn't make the finals his first 6 years, not the two years he "retired".

Not sure if it was conspiracy theory or real, but there was a rumor that he "retired" because he was going to be suspended by the NBA for gambling or something. They couldn't suspend the best player ever, so they came up with the retirement/baseball thing.